Do you think that it's useful studying games unannotated? Because today there are a lot of games collections, but it's difficult to find a good Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Rubinstein or Capablanca good games annotated collections
Larsens 50 games is a very good book with 50 annotated games.
Reti's Masters of the chessboard features excellent annotated games of Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker and Capablanca (and many others)
The Reti book is a classic, as is Bronstein's Zurich 1953 tournament book.
300 Chess Games of Tarraschs...for those of you who speak spanish there is a recent edition in español of that fine book; Editorial: La casa del ajedrez. Losts of french, Ruy Lopez and..yes 300 games of chess annotated by him.
Like others, I won't answer the question, I'll recommend a book.
Unannotated games can be very helpful, especially with modern databases to sort them. You can play through games in given opening variation one after the other, slowly enough to see what is going on but without trying to analyze too deeply, perhaps 15 minutes per game.
That way the patterns gradually become recognizable. You see the common strategies for both sides, and even the typical tactical shots that come up through the middlegame and right to the ending.
Of course, well-annotated games can be great for learning and entertainment, too. You don't have to choose just one or the other - use both!